Russia retaliated Friday to new sanctions from Washington by announcing it would seize US properties and demand a reduction in American diplomatic staff, according to reports.

The Kremlin took the tit-for-tat action in the wake of the US Senate vote to slap new financial sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea over President Trump’s objections.

The bill now awaits the president’s signature.

Russian officials said the US Embassy in Moscow and consulates in St. Petersburg, Yekaterinburg and Vladivostok must cut the number of their “diplomatic and technical employees” to 455 by Sept. 1, the Washington Post reported.

That staffing level would equal the number of Russian diplomatic staff in the US.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also said it would seize a Moscow warehouse and recreation complex used by the American Embassy.

A US Embassy spokesman could not immediately say how many people work for the Embassy and consulates in Russia.

The new US legislation is aimed at punishing Moscow for meddling in the 2016 presidential election and for its military aggression in Ukraine and Syria, where the Kremlin has backed President Bashar Assad.

It bars Trump from easing or waiving the penalties on Russia unless Congress agrees.

In December, President Obama kicked out 35 Russians described as “intelligence operatives” and seized two Russian diplomatic compounds because of Russia’s interference in the election.

The Russian Foreign Ministry recommend that President Vladimir Putin respond by expelling US diplomats, but he said he would wait, apparently hoping the newly elected president would reverse the decision after his inauguration.

US-Russian relations dropped to a post-Cold War low after Russia’s annexation of Crimea and interference in eastern Ukraine in 2014.

The new package of sweeping sanctions aims to hit Putin and his inner circle by targeting alleged corrupt officials, human-rights abusers and crucial sectors of the Russian economy.

Russia dismissed the new sanctions as “creating unfair competitive advantages for the US economy.”

“This kind of blackmail aimed at restricting the cooperation between Russia and other nations is a threat for many countries and global businesses,” a Foreign Ministry statement said.

“Then how come low-IQ, crazy Mika, along with Psycho Joe, came to Mar-a-Lago three nights in a row around New Year’s Eve, and insisted on joining me. She was bleeding badly from a face-lift. I said no!”

This is not the first time Trump has taken aim at Morning Joe – a popular early-morning politics show – for being critical in its coverage of him. But his comments about Brzezinski drew immediate comparisons to Trump’s feud with then-Fox News host Megyn Kelly, and his assertion during the election that she had “blood coming out of her wherever” while moderating a Republican primary debate.

“She gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions,” Trump said of Kelly in a CNN interview at the time. “You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever. In my opinion, she was off base.”

Trump denied he was referring to Kelly’s menstrual cycle, and remained unapologetic despite the subsequent backlash. Trump has a history of making vulgar comments about women – he referred to Rosie O’Donnell as a “fat pig” and a “slob”, and called Arianna Huffington a “dog”. He was criticized this week for making comments about the appearance of Caitriona Perry, an Irish journalist.

Trump once shared a friendly rapport with the Morning Joe hosts, frequently calling in to their program during the Republican primaries. But Trump began levying personal attacks against the duo during the general election, deeming their coverage of him unfair.

Trump once threatened to “tell the real story” of Scarborough’s relationship with Brzezinski (the co-hosts are engaged to be married). In that instance, Trump made similarly gendered remarks about Brzezinski by referring to her as Scarborough’s “very insecure long-time girlfriend” and “a neurotic and not very bright mess”.

While Scarborough and Brzezinski were sighted at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort on New Year’s Eve, Scarborough publicly denied they were there to participate in the festivities. “Nothing that Mika and I did in setting up this meeting was any different than what all good reporters and news hosts try to do daily,” Scarborough said in January, adding: “I hope we get the interview.”

Trump’s latest tirade follows a renewal of his attacks on the media, which included a tweet storm on Wednesday against the New York Times, the Washington Post and CNN over their recent coverage of his presidency.

Melania Trump pledged to combat cyberbullying as first lady, although little action has followed since her husband took office.

In a statement to reporters on Thursday, the first lady’s spokesperson said: “As the first lady has stated publicly in the past, when her husband gets attacked, he will punch back 10 times harder.”

Top White House aide Sarah Huckabee Sanders echoed this on Fox News. “This is a president who fights fire with fire, and certainly will not be allowed to be bullied by liberal media,” Sanders said.0:55White House: Trump tweets didn’t go too far – video

Later at the White House press briefing she denied that Trump had gone too far with the tweets. “I think the president has been attacked mercilessly on personal accounts, by members on that programme, and I think he’s been very clear that when he gets attacked, he’s going to hit back,” she told reporters. “I think the American people elected somebody who’s tough, who’s smart and who’s a fighter and that’s Donald Trump.”

Sanders complained that Morning Joe had repeatedly used phrases such as “utterly stupid”, “personality disorder” and “mentally ill” in reference to the president and called his allies “liars” to their faces. “He’s not going to sit back and be attacked by the liberal media, Hollywood elites, and when they hit him he’s going to hit back,” she added, while insisting that he has never promoted violence.

The deputy press secretary rejected the argument that Trump had been sexist in drawing attention to a woman’s looks. “Look, everyone wants to make this an ‘attack on a woman’. What about the constant attacks that he receives or the rest of us? I’m a woman and I’ve been attacked by this show multiple times but I don’t cry foul because of it. I think you want to create this false narrative: on the one hand let’s treat everybody equally, on the other hand they attack, attack, attack and he responds and apparently that’s wrong.”

But the tweet met immediate condemnation from a number of congressional Republicans. Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina tweeted: “Mr President, your tweet was beneath the office and represents what is wrong with American politics, not the greatness of America.” Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska took a more indirect approach, begging: “Please just stop. This isn’t normal, and it’s beneath the dignity of your office.”

Congresswoman Lynn Jenkins of Kansas, the second highest ranking Republican woman in the House of Representatives, tweeted: “This is not OK. As a female in politics I am often criticized for my looks. We should be working to empower women.”

Adrienne Watson, a spokesperson for the Democratic National Committee, said the president’s “bullying” tweets were “an attack on women everywhere”.

She said: “Trump has a long pattern of making demeaning, sexist and discriminatory comments about the women who take him on. The fact that they happen frequently doesn’t make them OK. From his Twitter slurs to his policies, we have a president who continues to show us he has no regard for women and whose comments demean the office he holds.”

Brzezinski herself responded on Twitter with an image that appeared to mock the size of the president’s hands.

The Republican-controlled House on Thursday passed two immigration bills that align with President Donald Trump’s aim to punish so-called “sanctuary cities” and deportees who re-enter the United States unlawfully.

The lower chamber voted 228-195 to pass the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, and 257-167 to approve Kate’s Law.

The No Sanctuary for Criminals Act would require cities to comply with federal immigration authorities — such as U.S. Customs and Immigration — or face a cutoff of federal law enforcement funds. The bill is similar to an executive order Trump signed in January, which was ultimately blocked in federal court.

There are more than 300 “sanctuary cities” in the United States — including New York City, San Francisco and Los Angeles — that have written or unwritten policies against complying with immigration officials. The crux of their arguments is that federal detainer orders bring about a number of unintended consequences that cause harm to the cities and counties in which the targeted immigrants reside. Those areas do, however, cooperate with ICE when immigrants are the subject of criminal warrants.

“Sanctuary cities are anything but safe,” Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly said. “Instead, these are places that allow some criminals to go free.”

Kate’s Law is named for Kate Steinle, a San Francisco woman who was killed in 2015 allegedly by an undocumented immigrant who had been deported multiple times. It seeks to increase the maximum penalties for migrants who re-enter the United States illegally after deportation.

“If you are going to receive taxpayer dollars from the federal government to keep people safe, then you have got to follow the law and keep them safe,” Rep. Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., the sponsor of Kate’s Law, said. “That’s the reason why we do that.”

The bills still need to be approved by the Senate, where many analysts believe both will be defeated. A similar effort by the Senate last year failed.

Trump has repeatedly advocated for stricter laws against criminals who are in the country illegally. Earlier this year, he announced the creation of VOICE — Victims of Immigrant Crime Engagement.

Critics of efforts targeting “sanctuary cities” blasted the bills’ passages Thursday, saying it’s inappropriate for the U.S. government to mandate that local law enforcement agencies enforce federal laws — particularly by threatening to cut funding, which totals in the billions nationwide.

“That’s just bogus,” Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., told CNN Thursday. “There’s nothing that any state or locality can or should do to prevent [ICE] from enforcing immigration laws. What they want to do is commandeer state and locals to do their job for them, and a lot of police departments object to that because they need to build trust with communities.”

“This bill perpetuates the ugly myth that immigrants are more dangerous and more likely to commit crimes than native Americans,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said. “This bill demonizes immigrants, punishes communities that seek to build trust between immigrants and law enforcement and allows indefinite detention, … all while making us less safe.”

CubaSi publishes the preface of the book “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” that will be launched today via Facebook Live.

As it reads the title, this book describes that political trend with increasingly prominence in the Cuban media environment, especially after the rapprochement between Cuba and the U.S.

President Barack Obama himself acknowledged that this old policy followed by Washington against Cuba for more than 50 years had failed.

If you follow recent events, you realize that traditional counter-revolution in Cuba, created and backed by successive U.S. administrations, had disappeared from the mass media until Trump brought them to life with his recent speech and thanks to major news agencies about Cuba.

Having Venezuela as their main target, major news agencies have dedicated to speak off “thawing” and Cuba as a tourist destination in recent months. Nonetheless, this new approach does not mean that Cuba faded away from the world news panorama. Instead, Cuba has taken a secondary role especially on the Internet where allegedly independent journalists are the target of their editorial, political interests.

Elier Ramírez visit CubaSi.

The retrograde speech of the Anti-Cuban mafia in Miami has been replaced by the portray of the Cuban reality proposed by “reformists or super revolutionaries” who seem to have discovered the absolute truth of what is happening in Cuba and what the faith of island should be.

After reading their texts, you can sense that these “centrists” —by using different literary, academic, or pure reporting styles— target a wide range of public, especially the revolutionaries. They are “experts” in highlighting their “non-confrontation” editorial line: the model of a failed socialism, pointing out its shortage, emphasizing on the economic field by comparing ours with those of developed countries.

Likewise, they now propose formulas to rethink socialism from new political and philosophical perspectives (multiparty system, constitutional and democratic reforms, electoral system, and the leading role of the Cuba’s Communist Party).

Likewise, centrists highlight the individual frustration before the political model as well as the inability to achieve his/her goals for the future, main cause of the migration in the country.

They criticize and attack the management of Cuban revolutionary institutions, especially those owned by the State, the government, and political organizations. They explicitly drift apart from government to trigger negative stereotypes on the intended public.

In line with Obama’s speech when he visited Havana, and having in common the private sector associated to an upper-middle class (according to their wealth), this sector owns a prosperous future and set them up to the State, which is represented as an obstacle to the personal growth of individuals inside the society (they grow “despite…” and not “thanks to” the State).

Cuban intellectuals visit Cubasi on the ocassion of the book launching: Enrique Ubieta.

They equally intend to highlight the existence of marginal spaces so they can portray a heartbreaking view caused by the abandonment and the mismanagement of the State and its institutions.

They insist on recalling and manipulate, again and again, prejudice or revolutionary measures adopted and overcome throughout time, especially issues related to homophobe (UMAP) and the cultural policy (Grey five-year period). They champion professional sports and call for the approval of laws allowing natural people and legal entities to be separated from State policies.

No need to say that these “centrists” are the champions of the so-called Third Way. A Third Way as an old trick of the bourgeois social democracy to calm the consequences of the excesses of the free market.

Paradoxically, the Third Way demands a rise in the regulation by the State of the inequality, corruption, marginalization, and other ills in the Capitalism. Meanwhile, these “centrists” look for an augment in the power of the market for the small or large private enterprise as compensation of the State power and excessive inclusion of Socialism. In two words, more capitalism.

Iroel Sanchez in Cubasi

But the “centrists” of the “Third Way” behave as inconsistently as an alleged impartiality in their publications. That press picks their information, which usually tackles negative elements. Talking about journalism, these “focused journalists and intellectuals” justify their “essential” informative mission with the “information gaps” of the revolutionary press. Actually, disoriented to the right, it is logical that they fill the agenda of the propaganda siege against the island. Therefore, they collaborate, consciously or not, with the oldest and most efficient of all Empire strategies: divide and rule.

It is hardly surprising that these “correspondents” attend to courses in countries like the U.S., Germany, or Netherlands; countries that seem to be worried about the information Cubans should receive. If the traditional counter-revolution —and some “centrists” as Raul Capote revealed in his article— was entertained by the USIS in Havana with dinners and meetings, the “centrists” are now having dinner in embassies that had never been worried about Cuba before. If there is an international delegation visit, there go the “centrists” to perform the welcoming ceremony and received a tap on their shoulders. Thus, these people pose as private political intermediaries.

Without apparent cause, some “centrists” reacted badly to Trump’s speech last June 16th. Two days after the speech, an AP press release noted: “When former U.S. President Barack Obama announced the restoration of the Cuba-U.S. relations in 2014, hundreds of people were encouraged to undertake press projects, private business like restaurants and guesthouses.”

Javier Gómez, accompanied by Giusette León, Journalist of Cubasi

Trump, by the way, championed —like Obama did— the help to the private sector (the “independent” media belong to this sector) despite his confrontation speech. And like centrists, he opposed State and Armed Forces from the people, as if they were antagonists.

This anthology of texts under the tile “Centrism in Cuba: Another twist towards Capitalism” deals with it and much more. This is a collection of 19 news articles published in blogs or Cuban media that we believe paramount to describe how the centrist option is being intended to create a mindset in the people. We also try to unmask the “new” trick with which they pretend to cause confusion among revolutionary readers.

As ebook, “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” is a book on the making. Thus, this is a first look to the subject that may increase the number of pages or being printed or better; serve as a source for an audiovisual work.

The Third Way approach emerged in England as a way to disguise and tone down the pillage of capitalism, accelerated after the collapse of Socialist projects in East Europe. It has not generated, as some gurus foretold, the necessary conditions so that poor people in the world can survive, produce, and consume. It has triggered a brutal worsening of living conditions, more poverty, insalubrity, and insecurity.

The representatives of the so-called Centrism in Cuba, who introduce themselves as a third way —an intermediate way between capitalism and socialism— try to show with a series of sophisms the ineffectiveness of the revolutionary path, as they deny the Revolution.

New words for old principles. The same formula was used to undermine the Revolution by the end of the 1950s and the early years of 1960s. It also occurred in the 1980s when a group of artists with emerging aesthetic proposals were used to promote the ideas of the third way. With the same purpose, international scholarships were used as well. Such scholarships had other purposes and tried to create confusion and division in complex times for Socialism in East Europe, especially targeting young artists and literary intellectuals.

The plot of the story

On May 14th, 2004 a group of U.S. officials, diplomats from allied countries, and CIA officials gathered at the house of a prominent U.S. official who worked at the U.S. Interest Section (USIS) in Havana, Francisco Saenz. I, writer and professor at the University, attended that meeting as Special Guest.

One hour earlier, the Cuban people had starred a demonstration in front of the USIS to protest against the hardening of the economic war on Cuba, as well as the threats of the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ten years later, the president of the same nation acknowledged the failure of such obsolete policy and tried to reach the same goal but using a different strategy. A logical move was to end the stick approach and thus, the Obama’s administration betted on projects like Genesis, Cuba Posible, etc.

In the U.S. home, Bush’s measures were celebrated; nonetheless, some spoke about the possibility of a change in the strategy to put an end to the Revolution in case Bush’s plans fail. The War against the historical leader was already lost. Other options had to be explored; for instance, the Chilean-like agreement or the Spanish-like transition.

Francisco Saenz spoke of a new way that men like me should start. He made reference to intellectuals, culture people, and scientists. Several names came up as well as the possibility to outline a way that most of the Cuban people would accept. The general consensus was that we must pave the way for a Cuba without Fidel and Raul Castro.

The “new way,” thirteen years after Bush’s measures to starve Cuba, the primitive language returns in the words of another president: Donald Trump.

Within the Eagle Sight

This was the first meeting of many. Kelly Keiderling, Head of Press and Culture at the USIS, began organizing with me social gatherings with artists not-openly committed to the counter-revolution. The “attraction” would be to discuss about Cuban reality.

Katrin Hansing, introduced as Kelly’s friend and partner at the Georgetown University, had the mission of summoning to the gatherings one renowned university professor. Today, this professor is a “constitution reformist”, a “promoter” of constitutional changes. Publishers of religious institutions like Espacio Laical and Vitral attended these meetings.

Those social gatherings did not meet their goals due to the poor participation of guests and the incriminating nature of the place, Kelly’s residence.

Afterwards, the idea was to create a Literary Agency approved by the Ministry of Culture. The goal was to have an independent organization open to all where writers and artists could “exchange views freely” and therefore, create the needed literary basis with future perspective.

Project Genesis

CIA Project Genesis is born in 2007 and its main target is the Cuban youth as well as the revolutionary sectors.

Genesis should have come to fruition in period of time of 10-15 years and came to light when the historical leaders of the Revolution were not alive. The new technologies of the information and communication, and the Internet would play a paramount role to promote contents and demonstrations.

A framework of leaders planted in economical, political, and social centers should have been created. It was interesting that Project Genesis must have given priority to those leaders of youth organizations such as UJC, or FEU for leadership grant.

We are talking about an organization “spread” in the universities, which should admit young students and professors linked to programs sponsored and financed by the enemy with artistic, academic, cultural, and social projects in the communities.

Genesis should have presented itself as a national option, born to defend our socialism, not to “update it” in order to lead the country through “modern” paths according to the most “notable” of the European and Latin American thought. A third way to plant confusion and chaos, aiming at destroying the unity of the country.

A small detail, this organization, had its schedule. It was composed of two committees: one executive and one consultative. The executive one was composed of Cubans while the consultative was composed of Americans. No decision could have been taken without the express approval of the consultative committee.

After the Complaint

On April 2011, as part of the public complaint known as Las Razones de Cuba, the monstrosity could not see the light. The social base composed of incredulous young people did not exist. It was hard for them to find young leaders and train new cadres, the most valuable young men in the country. These young men supported and support the Revolution.

They got back to work and tried to reorganize the job. Ted Henken carried out an inquiry in the Cuban blogosphere, identifying possible allies. He sought for any gap, and studied candidates.

Digital platforms with a centrist tendency emerged in the country by that time. Students, university professors, communication professionals operated the web. These people were linked to several courses financed by NGOs, programs and international scholarships, educational exchange programs, and other activities financed by private enterprises and mass media.

The former editors of Espacio Laical Roberto Veiga and Lenier Gonzalez funded the entity “Cuba Posible”. Few weeks after its foundation, Cuba Posible organized a great “academic” event in the U.S.

On May 26th, 2016 the Open Society Foundations hosted in its headquarters in New York the “Laboratorio de Ideas (Laboratory of Ideas)” Cuba Posible. The event held in New York, financed by Ford Foundations and Open Society, was about the “present challenges of Cuba.” The same Open Society of George Soros, the millionaire philanthropist involved in Color Revolutions and Soft Coups, the genocide behind Ukraine, Venezuela, etc…

The Empire new strategy created a media branch composed of platforms fostering a third way that may add leaders from the intellectual world as well as journalists and academicians. The goal was to attract a growing public by using captivating language and code.

They use popular tools in the marketing world as the storytelling in order to reach a better empathy with the audience.

They bet on moving the revolutionary ideology to the center after having failed with old formulas and witnessed how their best-elaborated plans have collapsed. They aimed at adding more people to the ideological, comfortable, and opportunistic ambivalence from an allegedly neutral approach to undermine the Revolution.

They promote the ideological lack of definition, the abandonment of principles, lack of commitment, and political inactivity. They boast to be nationalists and left-winged. They remain within the institutions, academies, cultural and scientific centers, in the mass media, but always against the Socialist state, the Communist Party and its anti-imperialist and revolutionary tradition.

But they have a big drama: they need a critical mass of people who may be far from the principles of the Revolution. And it did not happen. The vast majority of the Cuban people have opted for the socialist way along with the Communist Party of Cuba. And we are willing to change everything that must be changed, except for our souls and the sovereign soul of Cuba.

The Third Way, which is counterrevolutionary by its essence, has been the most powerful tool used by powers when they feel something is wrong. They see it in Cuba under this new Empire strategy as a B plan to undermine the Revolution from within. They tend to confuse and deceive the audience while walking a tightrope, where they go forward and backward, according to the U.S. instructions.

The Third Way, the Cuban centrism, was created in test tubes in the enemy subversion headquarters. Its leaders, disguised before the challenging task of finding new allies, were raised under the eagle shadow and its essence unmasked them.

Categories

In Sancti Spiritus People also Shouted ´I am Fidel´

Your browser does not support the video tag.

Cubasí.cu interviewed translator Aracelia del Valle from Escambray website on people’s reaction for the journey of the caravan carrying the remains of Commander in Chief Fidel Castro to Santiago de Cuba.